1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a suction inducing device for clearing the throat of a person choking on a food particle. The device includes a manual pump developing partial vacuum on its downstroke, and tubes and attachments for holding the device against the victim's mouth. The pump limits maximum partial vacuum by deflecting responsive to pressure differential between ambient pressure and the partial vacuum.
The pump comprises a flexible plunger disposed within a cylinder. The flexible plunger yields or deflects when moved with sufficient speed, so as to allow some air to flow past it into the chamber developing vacuum. This limited vacuum is a safety feature which prevents injury to the user, such as collapsing a lung.
Tubes are provided for connecting the face mask to the cylinder, where it is desired that the face mask be remotely located. These tubes, or necks, may be of different lengths, and may include both flexible and rigid necks.
The device has a trap for preventing blockage of the vacuum pump by objects removed by vacuum. A screen prevents blockage of the cylinder at an open end by a foreign object. The device includes mounting structure for mounting to vertical and horizontal environmental surfaces.
2. Description of the Prior Art
From time to time, a person will choke on a food particle or other object which may become lodged in his or her throat. If not cleared by spontaneous coughing or other actions, intervention by others may be required to remove the object causing choking. It has become recommended practice in emergency medical circles to employ the Heimlich maneuver, in which a second person suddenly squeezes the victim's torso below from behind the body and beneath the rib cage. This maneuver creates pressure in the lungs which will hopefully expel the object.
However, the Heimlich maneuver is not always successful. It is possible that the victim cannot be moved into a position enabling appropriate positioning of the would-be rescuer, or may be too heavy to move into an appropriate position. A second possible cause of failure of the Heimlich maneuver is that the victim lacks sufficient air in the lungs to develop enough pressure to expel the object. This could arise from having ingested the object immediately upon completing an exhaling step in the breathing cycle, or from having exhaled air by coughing.
In these situations, placing a source of suction to the mouth of the victim may prove more effective than by creating positive pressure, with respect to ambient pressure, within the torso.
Hand operated pneumatic pumps have long been employed for distributing and removing fluent material. An example is seen in U.S. Pat. No. 4,082,095, issued to Barry Mendelson et al. on Apr. 4, 1978. The device of Mendelson et al. does not develop vacuum on the downstroke of the piston, unlike the present invention. This device lacks a flexible plunger for relieving excess vacuum, a face mask for sealing pneumatic pressure at the face of a user, a trap for catching expelled material from the victim, a grate for preventing clogging of the piston chamber while simultaneously enabling air to be expelled to the ambient atmosphere, and means for mounting on an environmental surface. By contrast, these elements are present in the present invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,287,819, issued to Andre A. C. Emerit on Sep. 8, 1981, describes a vacuum device which develops vacuum when the handle is lifted relative to the cylinder. This is opposite the arrangement of the present invention. The Emerit device further lacks a flexible plunger for relieving excess vacuum, a face mask for sealing pneumatic pressure at the face of a user, a trap for catching expelled material from the victim, a grate for preventing clogging of the piston chamber while simultaneously enabling air to be expelled to the ambient atmosphere, and means for mounting on an environmental surface. By contrast, these elements are present in the present invention.
A fluid extractor described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,167,621, issued to David M. Band et al. on Dec. 1, 1992, generates vacuum by subjecting a diaphragm to an external source of vacuum. By contrast, the present invention employs a plunger disposed within a cylinder to generate vacuum. The device of Band et al. lacks means for relieving excess vacuum, a trap for catching expelled material from the victim, a grate for preventing clogging of the piston chamber while simultaneously enabling air to be expelled to the ambient atmosphere, and means for mounting on an environmental surface. By contrast, these elements are present in the present invention. While the device of Band et al. includes a mouthpiece, this is different from the face mask of the present invention, which seals pneumatic pressure at the face of a user subjected to vacuum for extracting a foreign object from the breathing passageways.
In U.S. Pat. No. 5,254,086, issued to Darrel Palmer et al. on Oct. 19, 1993, a dual pressure and vacuum device having two cylinders is set forth. Valves of the two cylinders are interdependent, relying upon pressure differential for successful operation. By contrast, the present invention has but one cylinder. Interdependent valves are not present in the present invention. The invention of Palmer et al. lacks a flexible plunger for relieving excess vacuum, a face mask for sealing pneumatic pressure at the face of a user, a trap for catching expelled material from the victim, a grate for preventing clogging of the piston chamber while simultaneously enabling air to be expelled to the ambient atmosphere, and means for mounting on an environmental surface. By contrast, these elements are present in the present invention.
French Pat. Nos. 668,573, dated November 1929, illustrates a positive pressure device. By contrast, the present invention generates vacuum. The subject device of the French patent lacks means for relieving excess vacuum, the protected opening of the cylinder of the present invention wherein air is rejected to the ambient, a face mask capable of sealing vacuum at the user's mouth and nose, and a plunger disposed within a cylinder. By contrast, these elements are present in the instant invention.
Although the device illustrated in French Pat. No. 746,185, dated May, 1933, has a plunger disposed within a cylinder, it is a positive pressure device which lacks structure for employing vacuum generated on a downstroke, and a plunger designed to limit vacuum. By contrast, both characteristics are found in the present invention. This prior art device also lacks an inflatable face mask for sealing pneumatic pressure at the face of a user, a trap for catching expelled material from the victim, a grate for preventing clogging of the piston chamber while simultaneously enabling air to be expelled to the ambient atmosphere, and means for mounting on an environmental surface. By contrast, these elements are present in the present invention.
German Pat. No. 230,740, dated February, 1911, further illustrates the art of manual pneumatic pumps. This device fails to teach a plunger which deflects to relieve excess vacuum, a protected opening within the cylinder for discharging air to the ambient atmosphere, a trap for catching an object removed by vacuum, and structure for mounting on an environmental surface. By contrast, these features are included in the present invention.
None of the above inventions and patents, taken either singly or in combination, is seen to describe the instant invention as claimed.